May 29, 2019
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford,
where the defendant was defaulted for failure to comply with
a court order; thereafter, the court, Huddleston, J.
A. Votre, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
F. Wareing, Hartford, with whom was Daniel S. Blinn, Rocky
Hill, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Bright and Devlin, Js.
Conn.App. 111] The defendant, A Better Way Wholesale Autos,
Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding
supplemental attorneys fees to the plaintiff, Sharay
Freeman. In the underlying action, the plaintiff brought a
two count complaint in which she claimed a violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §
42-110a et seq.,
and fraudulent misrepresentation related to the defendants
failure to refund the plaintiffs $2500 deposit for an
attempted sale of a used vehicle. The trial court found in
favor of the plaintiff on both counts, and this court
affirmed the judgment on appeal. See [191 Conn.App. 112]
Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., 174
Conn.App. 649, 651, 166 A.3d 857, cert. denied, 327 Conn.
927, 171 A.3d 60 (2017). On August 17, 2017, the plaintiff
filed with the trial court a motion for supplemental
attorneys fees. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court subsequently granted in part the plaintiffs motion for
supplemental attorneys fees and awarded her $49,980.
present appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred
in awarding the plaintiff supplemental attorneys fees, and
(2) abused its discretion in awarding attorneys fees in the
amount of $49,980. We disagree.
examination of the record on appeal and the briefs and
arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of
the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial courts
memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised
in the present appeal, we adopt its concise and well reasoned
decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and the
applicable law on the issues. See Freeman v. A Better Way
Wholesale Autos, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of
Hartford, Docket No. CV- 13-6045900-S, 2018 WL 2306605
(May 3, 2018) (reprinted at 191 Conn.App. 110, 213 A.3d 542).
It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the
discussion contained therein. See, e.g., Woodruff v.
Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010);
National Waste Associates, LLC v. Travelers Casualty &
Surety Co. of America, 294 Conn. 511, 515, 988 A.2d 186
(2010); Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut,
141 Conn.App. 573, 575, 61 A.3d 1187 (2013); Nestico v.
Weyman, 140 Conn.App. 499, 500, 59 A.3d 337 (2013);
Green v. DeFrank, 132 Conn.App. 331, 332, 33 A.3d
judgment is affirmed.
Conn.App. 113] SHARAY FREEMAN v. A BETTER WAY WHOLESALE
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
Memorandum filed May 3, 2018
Memorandum of decision on plaintiffs motion for supplemental
attorneys fees and costs. Motion granted in part .
S. Blinn, for the plaintiff.
Kenneth A. Votre, for the defendant.
plaintiff, Sharay Freeman, seeks $65,791.24 in supplemental
attorneys fees and costs pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et
seq., incurred in defending an appeal by the defendant, A
Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. The court previously found
the defendant liable under CUTPA and common-law fraud for
misleading the plaintiff about the refund-ability of a $2500
deposit on a used car. (# 132.) The plaintiff was awarded
$2500 in compensatory damages, $7500 in punitive damages,
and, in a subsequent
decision, $26,101.50 in attorneys fees. (# 148.) The
Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme Court
denied the defendants petition for certification to appeal.
See Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc.,
174 Conn.App. 649, 166 A.3d 857, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 927,
171 A.3d 60 (2017).
Conn.App. 114] The defendant objects to the motion for
supplemental attorneys fees. (# 153.) The court heard
argument on the motion on April 3, 2018, and held an
evidentiary hearing on April 13, 2018, at which the
plaintiffs appellate attorney testified. For the reasons